91热爆

Yeah, I know loads of people who love this guy yet to my ears he's bland and terribly annoying.

Horses for courses I guess.

SG

Peter Wilson really is a fantastic musician and I hope he gets the wider recognition that he really deserves. I couldn't get tickets for tonight though. But with your connections - any chance of getting us on the guest list Will?

Oh dear. Well I've known Pete for a long time; he's among the nicest guys you'll meet and unpretentious as it gets. (I still have a keyboard sound module he gave me.) But he simply hasn't thought long and hard enough about the question: "Should people be taxed to allow me to make music?" Let's define the term: TAX = an involuntary expropriation of the fruit of the labour of individual citizens. I love the arts and think they're important. But to tax people to pay for them (as 'art funding' is an arrogant enough practice to do) is what's "disgraceful". Stephen Graham has written extensively on this over the years (see more recent example) and I couldn't agree more.

Every once in a while when this topic comes up, people wonder how art could be funded if nobody was ever taxed to pay for it. The good news is there are a multitude of ways, and even some ways that the government can use without stomping all over the rights of the citizens to do it: lottery funds are a perfect example, sponsorship is another that's already commonly used for various arts.

I couldn't be happier for Pete Wilson right now and look forward to the next time I pay my own hard-earned cash to see him in concert.

I don't mind paying my taxes to fund the arts.
A lot of the work I do is funded by the arts council, city council etc. and it is work we couldn't do without their support.
sccw runs circus workshops across the city and throughout Northern Ireland. We work on cross community projects and projects for people with "special needs".
The amount of tax that goes to the arts isn't a huge amount and I would argue that it hasn't been well spent in the past - for example the crescent arts centre having its budget cut in the same year that they spent 拢100,000 on a big tv in Shaftsbury Square.
You may want to keep all your hard earned cash to yourself, but some of us don't mind paying taxes. There is more to life than your own self interest.
I would argue that my taxes need to be spent wisely - but I certainly don't begrudge paying them to brighten up a few peoples lives 鈥� who otherwise might not of had access to the arts.

I thoroughly recommend the article John links to...I personally know the author and he's a highly rational very intelligent guy ;)

SG

Dp says: "I don't mind paying my taxes to fund the arts."

Some people don't mind having anal sex, but does that mean I should be forced to bend over for them?

SG

It's hardly comparable.
Don't be so precious about your hard earned cash.
Northern Ireland spends less on the arts than the rest of the UK.
If you want to see how happy the arts can make people, I suggest you go and watch some of the shows at the festival of fools this weekend. A festival partly funded by our taxes and a festival that is accessible to everyone - well worth the price i'd say.

It is comparable...in both cases I'm being forced to indulge the passions and happiness of others regardless of my own desires and values. The difference is in one scenario I'm being robbed and in the other I'm being raped.

SG

dp- I don't want to sound inflammatory, but your arrogance is astounding to me. Stephen asks (in a highly amusing manner) a good question above.

You say: "I don't mind paying my taxes to fund the arts."

But you've misunderstood the point of taxes. Your statement is consistent with the principle of charity, not the principle of taxation. Charity is for those who "don't mind paying" as you say; tax is for those who need to be forced. The difference is "voluntary" or "involuntary". By your admission, you are paying voluntarily (though whether you'd actually give that money to arts funding if it weren't taken from you in taxes can only be speculated). Many others do not approve of their money being used in such a manner; I suggest that you are highly arrogant to assume that the practice is right simply because you do.

You go on to say: "You may want to keep all your hard earned cash to yourself, but some of us don't mind paying taxes. There is more to life than your own self interest."

Here you betray your lack of understanding economics. I won't strive to explain it here, but it's worth noting that in my society you would be entirely free to spend your money on stuff other than "your own self interest" as you claim to enjoy doing currently; whereas in the society you are happy to impose on me, I'm coerced to do so against my will. How convenient for you.

Finally: "I would argue that my taxes need to be spent wisely - but I certainly don't begrudge paying them to brighten up a few peoples lives 鈥� who otherwise might not of had access to the arts."

Do you donate to arts of any kind to this end? Do you work to promote such things in local communities? Do you sponsor people who can't afford to go to arts events? Again you aren't discussing your own voluntary contribution, you're discussing the willful forcing of citizens who don't agree with you (like me). That's a crucial difference. As soon as you agree with taxation for an end, you're not talking about yourself anymore; you're talking about the forceable expropriation of the fruit of the labour of other citizems. That's what's wrong.

LOL! Stephen G...

Great slam!

Pete.

highly amusing? yes i was clutching my sides - what a wag. He should be on the stage.

Do you donate to arts of any kind to this end? -yes
Do you work to promote such things in local communities? -yes
Do you sponsor people who can't afford to go to arts events? - I sometimes perform for free.

You don't agree with supporting the arts with public money, but your argument (as intellectually robust as you think it may be) just comes across as miserly and petty.
Forceable expropriation, being coerced against your will ! You might it sound like the next big civil rights movement. I'll come and have a laugh when you are at the city hall with your banners
"Its Rape ! no funding for the arts"
"Stop plundering my hard earned cash for artists"
I don't think your campaign would be as well supported as you'ld imagine.
I mainly ride a bike so could object to my taxes being spent on the new westlink road works which I will rarely use, but you know what - I don't let it bother me and I don't feel like i'm being robbed of my precious pennies.
The majority of artists I know (musicians, photographers, actors..etc) have received some sort of arts funding along the way and otherwise would not have been able to pursue their career. Some of whose work you might actually enjoy. I think that is something this country should be proud of - we have a rich cultural heritage which a few of your coppers have helped support. thanks for the change guvnor :)

dp- I'm glad you replied.

You say that you do, in fact, support the arts in various altruistic ways, including performing for free. That certainly constitutes altruism, since your performances include the giving of your time, your talent and your effort. So why is it that you feel it necessary to add to voluntary giving by condoning the actions which take the property of others against their will to supplement it? Would it not be enough otherwise? Are other people not as altruistic as you? Do you distrust the moral decisions of others with regard to where they spend their money? Or do you simply not regard their money as 'theirs' in the first place? How much, ideally, would you wish to force others to give up, of the amount that they earn through their own labour? 30 percent? 50 percent? 70 percent? How much of my money IS legitimately mine to make my own moral decisions with, according to you? (Or do you, as I suspect, regard those questions as entirely irrelevant, in which case you're not only wrong but inconsistent too?)

You go on to assert that my argument "...just comes across as miserly and petty."

I don't give a damn how it comes across. Perhaps half your problem is that you regard the emotional, aesthetic concern of how an argument "comes across" as more important than what it actually says. The concept of individual property rights is something that I believe to be important. Obviously, for you, one should not seek principle on such matters if it has the potential of coming across as "miserly". Is that how you really conduct yourself politically? Apathy would be preferable to that.

"I don't think your campaign would be as well supported as you'd imagine."

It certainly wouldn't among artists! They rarely care where the money comes from as long as it comes. Perhaps the reason you don't like the way I construct the description of 'government funding of the arts' is because it actually forces you to consider the full process?

"I think that is something this country should be proud of - we have a rich cultural heritage which a few of your coppers have helped support. thanks for the change guvnor :)"

The United States of America also has a rich cultural heritage in all of the arts - few would disagree - yet it is so largely without the sort of "funding" you imply it's impossible to do without in Northern Ireland. And what about some of the alternative methods of funding I mention above which don't involve taxation? Do you think they could ultimately render tax-based programs obsolete? Or do you not wish to be bothered by having to deal with such ideas?

The fundamental difference between you and I, dp, is ideaological. I believe in the sovreignty of the individual. That means I don't believe that anyone owes me anything (even if I'm a poor struggling artist) and I don't wish to owe anyone anything either. I believe my life is an end onto itself, not a means to some kind of greater societal good.

Unfortunately, the product of your argument is that individuals are merely pawns to be used for some kind of social end, and you're entirely happy to be one of them - especially when it benefits you.

DP - your arrogance is surpassed only by your ignorance. How dare you think I should have my money taken from me to support your life and your career! Why must I support myself, with no outside funding taken from the general public, while you and others like you get hand-outs? Support yourself! What age are you, 12? If you artists are producing decent work then you'll have no problem bringing in the punters and raking in the cash. Only substandard art needs money forcibly taken.

Here's the dilemma: if your art is good enough then there is no reason why it can't pay for itself. If your art is NOT good enough then there is no reason why I and others like me should be forced to support it. If you can't mnake a living out of art - do something else!

Tommy.

Dear Tommy,

I do not agree that,

"If your art is NOT GOOD ENOUGH then there is no reason why I and others like me should be forced to support it."

I belive that a lot of the most amazing art is not properly appreciated in its time. Brilliant people like Mozart created work that was only fully appreciated much latter, mozart spent long peroids of his life in fiancial difficulties. it is offten said that to be an important painter you have to be dead.

Surly it is our responsibility as a society to help these artist. At least to give some of them anough to survive on. For the good of society?

Are you not being a little bit idealistic here? What do you know of being a struggeling artist?

I am more concerend that the taxpayers money is being spent on the pointless killing of inocent people in iraq. suposedly to bring about a free society.

am549- I don't wish to preempt Tommy's response, but allow me to respond in my own way.

You say: "Surly it is our responsibility as a society to help these artist. At least to give some of them anough to survive on."

You are entirely free, as an individual, to help these artists all you like. Think about it. You trade your labour for money. You then trade that money for goods and services required to live. At what point do you believe it necessary to have the money you've earned taken forcibly from you so it can be given to other people for the next great cause? And why? I'm frankly astounded that attitudes like this still exist; that creative people have apparently not been creative enough to find their own funding.

You then say the magic words: "For the good of society?"

Ever read George Orwell's novel, 1984? It's an incredibly great piece of art. Orwell's family couldn't afford for him to go to university, so he got a job with the police in Burma. It was his life experiences in Burma, among other things, that inspired his novels. (No public funding of his art was necessary for it to occur.) 1984 is an indictment of those worldviews that regard the government as an agency that should coerce "for the good of society".

hi john

you say

"You are entirely free, as an individual, to help these artists all you like."

my point is that people (like me) may not apreciate the value of the work, van gogh sold many of his paintings for the price of a meal.

i am not advocating taxation. i have not thought about this enough. but i belive that it is our responsiblity (as individuals or a society) to support the arts with intergrity and not be driven by "market forces".

For example i am against how comercialized the music industry has become, i belive it is crippling musicians. should we just support people because they are popular?

this is the point i was making to tommy.

Not much of the work I do is funded by your taxes - in fact only the cross community and special needs projects I referred to earlier are.
I am more than capable of making a living through the arts.
As AM549 said - I would be a lot more concerend about some of the other things that our taxes are spent on.
Don't get so wound up Tommy - Arrogance, ignorance... how dare I....What are you 12..
give it a break Tom.

Artists aren't the only people benefitting from your taxes. How about these schemes set up to help new start businesses. A lot of people benefit one way or another from taxation. It's a system that seems to be working pretty well.
I'm sorry if it offends you - (and you do seem highly offended) but thats the system we are living with, and continue to vote for.
I dont believe anyone owes me anything either - I probably just have a more altruistic outlook than some of you and that is reflected in my politics and the way I live my life.
Libertarianism is all self self self - and that doesnt seem very appealing to me
(awaiting comeback of essay proportions on my lack of understanding of Libertarianism)
:)

am- Thanks for your reply.

You say: "i am not advocating taxation. i have not thought about this enough. but i belive that it is our responsiblity (as individuals or a society) to support the arts with intergrity and not be driven by 'market forces'."

So you aren't disagreeing with me then. The problem is that in the absence of taxation, artists and those who support the arts are forced - as they should be - to consider other options for funding their art. I agree that many artists are not supported at the beginning. They must achieve success, and strive to do so. I have friends who are in precisely this position.

Those who are interested in finding funding for those artists that aren't enjoying commercial success must consider other ways to fund them. There are many ways to do this: lottery funding, art fairs which support funding, art scholarships, fundraising, sponsorship, collaboration with businesses, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Sounds like a lot of work? It's much easier to say, "Dammit, that's too difficult. Let's just ask the government to help us out with the funds of the working public." It's easy, and it's wrong. Any legitimate practice must achieve its existence by legitimate means.

---------------------

dp- You say: "Artists aren't the only people benefitting from your taxes. How about these schemes set up to help new start businesses. A lot of people benefit one way or another from taxation. It's a system that seems to be working pretty well."

If what you mean by 'working' is that society hasn't collapsed or anything from it, you're right. There are few people in politics willing to sound like a Scrooge; that doesn't mean their policies are ethical or correct. Is it right that your money be taken so that someone else can use it to start a business? Hell, no. You seem to have this idea that my criticism (or maybe Tom's) is unfairly picking on art funding. I can't speak for Tom, but I'm objecting on principle, not out of any hate for the arts (as I hope I've made clear above).

"Libertarianism is all self self self - and that doesnt seem very appealing to me (awaiting comeback of essay proportions on my lack of understanding of Libertarianism) :)"

dp, I'm not here to bash you over the head for anything. Libertarianism = freedom. Is libertarianism inherently selfish? Not in the slightest. I'd be interested to hear why you believe self-interest to be a bad or sad thing, but that's another debate. Libertarians simply support freedom to choose: that means you can be as altruistic as you like or, conversely, as selfish as you like. Under the system you support, one is forced to comply with whatever the loudest lobby group is arguing for, whether you like it or not. An individual doesn't own the fruit of his or her labour; it's the government's role to distribute it wherever it sees fit.

As we established above, under my system you'd still be able to give to the arts yourself, as would everybody, and there are compelling arguments by economists that under such a system you would be able to give more, not less, to such programs because more of your money would be yours to keep! In America, it's been shown that people who live in states with lower taxation donate more money to various causes than people who live in state with higher taxation. Lower taxation inherently means that the individual is more responsible for the financial decisions in their lives, including charity. I still wouldn't assume that charity is the best way to fund the arts (it seems to me that many artists could do more to fund their own work than they currently do) but such giving is enabled by a libertarian approach to politics, not denied by it.

John sums it up well...

nuff said.

tom

Some of you guys should spend time reading Libertarian Reason - the blog of John & Stephen G. I've just recently come accross it and it's a great little island of rationality in an insane world were people think we should be taxed to fund their artistic values.

tom

Tommy- You're a good man. :-)

Tommy,

I've looked at the libertarian stuff you mention. It's bizarre. Unreasoned. Political fundamentalism.

Paying tax within a society is a commitment to the creation of a society we all want to enjoy.

I am glad to pay my contribution if it means that vulnerable people get health care when they need it. John Wright doesn't care if poor people die in the streets without an ambulance.

The same goes for the arts. the arts improve all our lives and our society.

Helen-

"Political fundamentalism."

Of all the criticisms of libertarianism that people make, you're the first I've heard describe it as "fundamentalism". It's clear to me from this comment that you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you do some proper reading before you make crazy judgements like this? If the style and irreverence of doesn't agree with you, why don't you read through some of the many (much bigger) libertarian publications and think tanks: the , , , the to start. But do me a favour Helen: don't write off an entire political movement with a long and respectable history as "fundamentalism" out of sheer ignorance.

(By the way, you threw me this further cheapshot: "John Wright doesn't care if poor people die in the streets without an ambulance." Where do you get this rubbish? If you can't substantiate this statement, I'd like you to retract it.)

John ...

You don't support tax-funding for a national health service. That would leave poor people without care. That's your posiiton. If you're embarrassed by this, it's not my fault.

Helen- Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. But why don't you stick to the subject of arts funding: you've only said how "bizarre" you think is the idea of repealing government arts funding in favour of other methods. Is this a measure of your creativity? Your ability to think outside of the box? Or do you genuinely have an argument?

John, Thanks for the link to the Adam Smith Institute. I notice they have an entry on arts funding too...

Helen:

That you think that makes me incredibly happy. I actually really do enjoy it when a certain class of person disagrees with me.

Very reassuring. Thank you.

SG

Helen - the only thing more astounding than DP's arrogance is his ignorance. The only thing more astounding than his ignorance is yours.

Ever so kind regards,

tom

There seems to be this assumption in the free thinking community that the same rational consideration that leads us to atheism also leads us to Libertarianism. This is absolute nonsense.
Helen raises some valid points, and I'd tend to agree. The politics of selfishness don't appeal to me at all.
Tommy, if the only reason you are going to post is to slag people off or to big up John and Stephen your not really adding much to the debate.

dp- Relatively few 'free thinkers' are libertarians. In the UK, for example, there is no such thing as a 'Libertarian Party' (what we might call a large-L libertarian) as there is in the States. I would argue that one can be rational and reasonable and not be libertarian, if that makes you feel better. You say "Helen raises some valid points..." - name me one argument she made! Helen is a verbal slurry spreader; she doesn't have a point, she thinks before she speaks, makes charges she can't substantiate and then leaves. You cheapen your argument by appealing to Helen who so far hasn't shown a shred of thoughtfulness about this subject. You at least are engaging with the arguments, dp, and deserve recognition for doing so.

Before I finish, did you totally miss where I said that libertarianism isn't inherently selfish? Perhaps - just perhaps - and maybe you can at least consider the possibility of this being the case, your view of politics is prejudiced against libertarianism because all the politics you've ever known are very unlike libertarian politics and you're simply reflecting your political culture while remaining suspicious of any other solutions? So far we've only talked about arts funding. You don't seem to be able to conceive of a society that doesn't use taxes to fund the arts. It sounds awful to you. Is that not incredibly small minded? As the Adam Smith link in #26 mentions, government subsidy of the arts "...did not give us the Golden Age of Greece, or the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment. It gave us Eastenders and the Millennium Dome." You really consider it selfish to allow people to decide where to spend their own money rather than assume the role of Robin Hood and take it from them for things they may not agree with? I contend THAT is the strange position.

(By the way, #26 was supposed to be in quote marks; I was quoting an anonymous email posted to me yesterday.)

Damn it John...you've killed another debate with cold hard reason.

Sheesh!

SG

Hold your horses Stephen, we aren't finished yet.
I can conceive of a society that doesn't use taxes to fund the arts, as most of my bookings come from the corporate sector. As I've said previously the only work I do that is funded partly by your taxes is the cross community and special needs projects, and I would argue that these projects justify this spending because of the wider social/health benefits they provide. A couple of my friends work as clown doctors in some of the local hospitals - and I鈥檓 sure lots of families would testify to the benefits of this scheme in helping young children deal with the trauma of going through a hospital procedure.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it is a utopian idea and there has never been a Libertarian nation so it is difficult to argue for its efficacy as a workable system. You could argue that the poor wouldn't be marginalised by this system but I doubt it - all we have is conjecture.
Libertarianism is so last century. It may have some success on the fringes but as a grand political idea to solve all the worlds鈥� ills it fails, just like all the other grand political ideas of the last century.

Looks like this post has dropped off the bottom of the page. Will has been a busy bunny this last couple of days. I'll bookmark it.

Hold your horses Stephen, we aren't finished yet.
I can conceive of a society that doesn't use taxes to fund the arts, as most of my bookings come from the corporate sector. As I've said previously the only work I do that is funded partly by your taxes is the cross community and special needs projects, and I would argue that these projects justify this spending because of the wider social/health benefits they provide. A couple of my friends work as clown doctors in some of the local hospitals - and I鈥檓 sure lots of families would testify to the benefits of this scheme in helping young children deal with the trauma of going through a hospital procedure.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it is a utopian idea and there has never been a Libertarian nation so it is difficult to argue for its efficacy as a workable system. You could argue that the poor wouldn't be marginalised by this system but I doubt it - all we have is conjecture.
Libertarianism is so last century. It may have some success on the fringes but as a grand political idea to solve all the worlds鈥� ills it fails, just like all the other grand political ideas of the last century.

Looks like this post has dropped off the bottom of the page. Will has been a busy bunny this last couple of days. I'll bookmark it.

dp- You wouldn't believe how many times I've held this exact debate: the same points raised in the same order with the same answers and the same outcome. I actually really appreciate that you've decided to continue the conversation; it says that at least you're open to discussion (something that can't be said for Helen above).

Let's avoid debating the topic of the rightness or wrongness of cross-community funding since NI is in such a unique situation. With regard to general arts funding, you say:

"I can conceive of a society that doesn't use taxes to fund the arts, as most of my bookings come from the corporate sector."

Then you can conceive of a libertarian society - in this regard at least. Is it really so horrible? My own 'society' here in Arizona contains some extremely 'artsy' subcultures (Google 'Sedona' or 'Jerome' for examples, beautiful places) -- there's no such thing as government-subsidised arts funding here and the local artists would be appalled at the idea of starting it up! Commercial success is possible for most talented artists. For those who haven't made it or need help along the way, I've offered up five or six major funding methods (above) that it is the responsibility of those interested in furthering arts opportunities to consider and implement. I see nothing 'selfish' about this; in fact the atmosphere of freedom provided consistently by libertarianism encourages artistic endeavour rather than diminishes it.

"A couple of my friends work as clown doctors in some of the local hospitals...."

Are you aware that 'clown care' began here in America under an outreach of the Big Apple Circus in New York City? - no public funds are involved to this day. The Circus uses the creative concept of 'Membership' to provide an incentive: become a member and you get seats at the front of all the shows while your money is used to fund the clown care programs. (Could this be an example not only of private altruism but also of legitimate self-interest resulting in altruism?)

You then shift tack to talk about libertarianism in general: "The problem with Libertarianism is that it is a utopian idea and there has never been a Libertarian nation so it is difficult to argue for its efficacy as a workable system. "

Your implication is that libertarianism is untestable. That's just wrong. The discipline of economics, like the discipline of mathematics, is a predictable, testable science which is easy to observe within a libertarian model. What we find is that lower taxes (for a start) result in a much more vibrant economy, vibrant enough to make society much more prosperous than it is now, where the trickle-down to the disadvantaged is much greater and where opportunities are much more abundant.

Let's say we have a great pendulum that you can set at any particular point that you wish, and that at one side of the pendulum you have libertarianism (ultimate individual rights, little tax) and on the other side of the pendulum you have socialism (collectivism, little rights, maximal tax). The closer we set it to libertarianism, the more we see the effects that libertarianism is producing. The closer we set it to socialism, the more we see the effects of that. The fact is that we have tested this. Most countries are somewhere between the two extremes, including America. But the United States is the closest the pendulum has ever swung in a libertarian direction. China, the USSR, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, are examples of the pendulum being set closer to the socialist side of the spectrum.

What do we observe? We observe that the United States is the wealthiest nation on earth with the largest middle class on earth and the least proportional amount of poverty. (There is poverty in America, and it is the result of the pendulum not being close enough to the libertarian ideal, not that it's gone too far!) We observe, conversely, that each and every nation governed by socialism is poverty-stricken across the board, where living conditions and quality of life is horrendous.

There are well understood reasons that this is the case. Again we consult the discipline of economics. The more a human being is allowed to keep the product of his own labour, the more he will work to earn it. The net result is that most people work, most create wealth and most are more prosperous. The less a human being is allowed to keep the product of his own labour, the less he will work. The net result: everyone is poorer.

"Libertarianism is so last century."

What makes you think that an appeal to trendiness is a relevant factor of political debate? In any case, libertarianism is fairly new in its pure form. It traces its routes through classical liberalism with a stopover at the philosophy of Ayn Rand and becomes contemporary libertarianism only within the past 30 years or so. Regardless.

dp- One final point....

"....as a grand political idea to solve all the worlds鈥� ills [libertarianism] fails..."

Unlike the other political ideas you have in mind, libertarianism doesn't aim to solve all the world's ills. Its basic aim is to redress government so that it honours the rights of human beings to liberty. And it's important to realise that rights are what we take into politics, they're not something the government can give us to take out. Therefore the aim of libertarianism is not to obtain rights, the aim of libertarianism is merely to get governments to recognise that we already have them.

Thanks for the reply John, i'm a bit busy today so I might get a proper reply done later.

Holding America up as the closest thing we have to an ideal society sounds a bit ridiculous when you think about how America is viewed by the rest of the world at present.
Not sure where you are getting your figures on poverty from, Peter Singer takes a different view;

鈥淎lthough America is one of the worlds richest nations, the proportion of the population living in relative poverty is more than twice as high in the united states as it is in France, Germany or Italy. Also 录 of American children live in poverty. The poorest 10% of the American population are worse off in absolute terms than the poorest 10% in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan (the list goes on). The richest 1% of Americans hold 38% of the nations wealth and the gap between rich and poor is growing wider.鈥�

Also
鈥淪tudies of national tax and spending policies have shown that societies in which governments tax more, as a proportion of GDP, are also societies with lower income inequality. Higher welfare spending does reduce inequality. And since among the richer nations the more equal ones have, on average, a higher income per capita, more redistribution by the state leads to a lower rate of absolute poverty.鈥�

The American dream is a load of balls, there has never been equality of opportunity and never will be. The wealthiest members of American society acquire their wealth at the expense of the poorest.
It鈥檚 very optimistic to think that in a fully Libertarian society that prosperity would trickle down to the poorest members of our society. There is only so much room on top and no matter how hard they work, some people are always going to remain at the bottom of the pile through no fault of their own. We can not rely on the philanthropy of a wealthy elite to ensure we have a more just society.

Also, I wouldn鈥檛 necessarily judge a country鈥檚 success by how economically powerful it is. The unending accumulation of wealth and resources is unsustainable. You may doubt the urgency of the climate change message (I don鈥檛) but even if you do, the long term existence of the planet isn鈥檛 helped by the unmanaged plunder of its finite resources. We need to scale back our consumption and the size of our population. There is no such thing as sustainable development 鈥� we just need to become sustainable.
I think it was Gandi that said 鈥渨e have enough to satisfy every man鈥檚 need but not every man鈥檚 greed.鈥�
Thanks for the education in Libertarianism but I think we are better off with the pendulum in the middle.
Anyway we've gone way off topic here - what do you mean Duke Special - Bland and annoying! :)

Holding America up as the closest thing we have to an ideal society sounds a bit ridiculous when you think about how America is viewed by the rest of the world at present.
Not sure where you are getting your figures on poverty from, Peter Singer takes a different view;

鈥淎lthough America is one of the worlds richest nations, the proportion of the population living in relative poverty is more than twice as high in the united states as it is in France, Germany or Italy. Also 录 of American children live in poverty. The poorest 10% of the American population are worse off in absolute terms than the poorest 10% in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan (the list goes on). The richest 1% of Americans hold 38% of the nations wealth and the gap between rich and poor is growing wider.鈥�

Also
鈥淪tudies of national tax and spending policies have shown that societies in which governments tax more, as a proportion of GDP, are also societies with lower income inequality. Higher welfare spending does reduce inequality. And since among the richer nations the more equal ones have, on average, a higher income per capita, more redistribution by the state leads to a lower rate of absolute poverty.鈥�

The American dream is a load of balls, there has never been equality of opportunity and never will be. The wealthiest members of American society acquire their wealth at the expense of the poorest.
It鈥檚 very optimistic to think that in a fully Libertarian society that prosperity would trickle down to the poorest members of our society. There is only so much room on top and no matter how hard they work, some people are always going to remain at the bottom of the pile through no fault of their own. We can not rely on the philanthropy of a wealthy elite to ensure we have a more just society.

Also, I wouldn鈥檛 necessarily judge a country鈥檚 success by how economically powerful it is. The unending accumulation of wealth and resources is unsustainable. You may doubt the urgency of the climate change message (I don鈥檛) but even if you do, the long term existence of the planet isn鈥檛 helped by the unmanaged plunder of its finite resources. We need to scale back our consumption and the size of our population. There is no such thing as sustainable development 鈥� we just need to become sustainable.
I think it was Gandi that said 鈥渨e have enough to satisfy every man鈥檚 need but not every man鈥檚 greed.鈥�
Thanks for the education in Libertarianism but I think we are better off with the pendulum in the middle.
On your final point on rights. I think that governments do recognise that we have rights, and we have competing rights 鈥� that鈥檚 why we need them to redress the balance of the effect that giving you your rights has on other people鈥檚 rights.
Anyway we've gone way off topic here - what do you mean SG - Duke Special - Bland and annoying! :)

"The American dream is a load of balls..."

With that the conversation ends.

Thanks.